Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

“Never did I suggest that people should morph into beings that they are not, only that they exercise self control over the beings that they are…If your handing out condoms to students as they leave the class, are you not also giving them there homework for the night?... You would not even consider the inclusion of abstinence in a health class curriculum, and you'll cry bloody murder if it were.”

I wouldn’t cry bloody murder about anything. Let whomever teach whatever they want to teach. But, as a marketing professional, I’m always more interested in bottom-line results than anything else. Abstinence has never worked, and never will work as long as humans are humans, any more than socialism will work.

“If only they would” scenarios are pointless. Abstinence as a technique for eliminating unwanted pregnancies has been tried and failed because people, including teenagers, don’t all want to be monks until they get married. They get horny, and then they have sex. Rational long-term planning is rarely involved. Even in the most religious days of Europe and colonial America (where the abstinence message was strategy numero uno), they had pages and pages of bastardy laws and had to constantly enforce them because the problem kept happening. Were the Puritans a bit too loose and culturally progressive for your liking?

Condoms and birth control work (most of the time, anyway). They prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs while implicitly acknowledging the reality that you’re not going to turn every seventeen year-old in America into a celibate monk until he/she decides to get married. If you get more and more people to use birth control, that’s the quickest and most effective way to having fewer and fewer unwanted pregnancies.

“As for income equality, now think about this, if all income were equal there would be no need for income.”

What’s your point?

“Now the law may consider the destruction of a human zygote no big deal, but my morals and ethics are not based on the present law. After all, as your side is so fond of pointing out, the law once thought slavery was no big deal.”

Indeed, but until your morals and ethics can present a consistent principle that—for example—tells us it’s okay to kill chickens and eat them but a no-no to destroy a week-old human zygote, that law will stand.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

James' comments on abstinence and your, Zach's, "I’m always more interested in bottom-line results than anything else. Abstinence has never worked, and never will work as long as humans are humans, any more than socialism will work."

So what's the purpose of insisting on discipline in the military? Are two members of a unit going to be wed for life or is there a more limited objective?

Oh, and be careful when you bring up "marketing" for I fear there are some in this forum, myself included, that have probably forgotten more about marketing, both in theory and practice, than you've learned so far. Your comments on abstinence show it.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

ZachFirst I need to bring back the context that you tried to run from by posting your response here.

You said

"James:Ah yes, STDs and unwanted pregnancies could be utterly obliterated if people would just stop wanting to have sex so darn much. We could also completely eliminate income inequality if people would just stop wanting to make more money all the time. Oh, and think of all the liver disease that we’d conquer if people would just stop drinking altogether."

My actual response, not your snippet, was

"ZachDid I say anything about "... stop wanting to have sex so darn much."? No I didn't, I spoke of the need to stop having sex so darn much until your in a position to do so responsibly. That's abstinence, it means to abstain, to deny yourself something you crave.Never did I suggest that people should morph into beings that they are not, only that they exercise self control over the beings that they are."

You continue"Oh yeah, and then there’s the real world."

And my answer to that was"Here in the real world, people, and you are an advocate, promote promiscuity through sex education, and it is less an education about sex and more a promotion of sex. If your handing out condoms to students as they leave the class, are you not also giving them there homework for the night?"

Now you say"Abstinence has never worked, and never will work as long as humans are humans, any more than socialism will work."

Abstinence doesn't work? Are you kidding me?How does a guy manage to get a girl pregnant if one or the other, or both, is practicing abstinence?I can't wait to read your convoluted explanation of that piece of wisdom.

Let's continue.

Your next brilliant observation was"Also, I checked, and murder appears to be “the crime of unlawfully killing a person.” Since it is legal to kill a zygote, and the personhood of said zygote is far from certain, it seems rather hasty to call all abortion murder, don’t you think?"

No I don't.So I responded"And finally, zygotes.We both know what they are so I won't belabor that point.Now I'm sure you would agree that the union of an ovum and sperm cell of a human couple creates a human zygote, and that zygote is living.Now the law may consider the destruction of a human zygote no big deal, but my morals and ethics are not based on the present law.After all, as your side is so fond of pointing out, the law once thought slavery was no big deal."

Now here, because you assume no one saw or remembered the above, you say"Indeed, but until your morals and ethics can present a consistent principle that—for example—tells us it’s okay to kill chickens and eat them but a no-no to destroy a week-old human zygote, that law will stand."

What do you mean by "indeed"? Are you acknowledging I'm right, yet continue on? Zach, my morals and ethics have been consistent for centuries, it's you new brand of morals and ethics that need proving, no matter what the law says.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Okay, so from the study you linked me to: "Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes…It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications (“epi-marks”) originating in embryonic stem cells.”

I don’t think anyone chooses to have reduced or enhanced androgen sensitivity, whether it is genetic or epigenetic. Now, apparently we may be able to alter this in the future by administering certain drugs to children, among others. Should we? What if they don't want the treatment?

By the way, the latest studies do not, in fact, say what I was asking about when I said “It doesn’t? Says who?” You made the claim that the phenomenon of copying errors in identical twins doesn’t account for the low number of identical twins with different sexual orientations. I see no explicit affirmation of this claim in the study you presented.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The latest study shows that although science has been working under the assumption that homosexuality is a result of the person's DNA, they have now thrown that to the curb since no major gene for homosexuality has been found. As a result, some scientists are setting forth a new model based on epigenetics. It's a new theory, Zach, not a fact. So your statement that no one chooses to have reduced or enhanced androgen sensitivity is premature. Scientifically speaking, we still don't know why people are homosexual. We just now know it isn't a result of DNA, so scientist are beginning work on a new theory.

The study I linked to said, "yet concordance between identical twins is low..." In medical terms, concordance means: the presence of a given trait in both members of a pair of twins. Taking into account the copying errors which makes identical twins different over time, they should still show similar traits 93% of the time, I believe. The trait for homosexuality was only about 50%. That lead the writers of this study to conclude the concordance was too low to show the trait was determined by DNA, plus no such gene has been found.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Please see my post to Nancy for more on this. I don’t have a need, as you say, to paint humans as automatons—rather, I simply want to gain a better understanding of why we are how we are. Let me ask you this, Keith: How would you feel if, as a heterosexual man who is naturally attracted to women, society told you that your feelings were unnatural and you should be attracted to men instead? Sure, you could always choose to suppress your feelings and pursue men, even if you were always truly attracted to women and repelled by romantic encounters with men. You’d be miserable, though, wouldn’t you? So, what’s the point? What is the net benefit of your perpetual misery?

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Aren't defense and aggression evolutionary imperatives. So doesn't it make sense that humans could discipline themselves to do what comes naturally to them. That is to defend themselves or to become acquisitive. Military discipline only enhances something we feel natural in doing.

Sex is maybe a more powerful imperative as a males number one mission seems to be to spread his own genes. Now you say we should discipline ourselves to resist an evolutionary imperative often at the height of need to do these sort of things., This seems to be an apples and oranges argument.

This reminds me of a Star Trek episode where the Spock , a Vulcan all of sudden became uncontrollably angry and obstinate. Vulcans were a humanoid race that abandoned human like emotion in favor of logic and reason. This was most uncharacteristic of him. However, this was "Amok Time" for Spock. You see even though Spock was a creature of logic and reason, there was one thing he could not avoid. He had to mate - or die.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Thanks for making at least part of my case. I couldn't have done it better myself. But of course you don't even realize you did it.

So, instilling discipline to help overcome a natural urge, as is insistence on abstinence to ovecome another natural urge, a mixing of apples and oranges? Hmm.

I am beginning to think you don't even know what these two fruits are or look like. See my longer post towards the bottom of the page, for this latest one about fruit is just another of your weird discourses and failure to connect dots, this one fortunately short but nevertheless just as misguided as most of your other posts. It seems that you just want to be against for its on sake, and to defend one of your few supporters in this forum.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

And what case would that be. That abstinence is a viable strategy to prevent unwanted pregnancy or that it isn't. You appeared to argue that Zach should consider "Military discipline" as an example of how humans can control their behavior to achieve an objective.

My point, in case it was missed, is that you are using a methodology to control something that is already a natural tendency. It is tantamount to saying that once you instruct an extremely talented athlete how to harness his natural gifts you might get Michael Jordan.

On the other hand you will have great difficulty keeping said athlete off the court especially once he has sampled success at what he is good at. In other words telling Michael Jordan not to play basketball would become nearly impossible. You need only examine the number of young men who willingly put their health on the line to play professional football.

Or is your position the same as Zach's that abstinence is a failed strategy?

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

So installing discipline is not necessary because we already have it within us, it's a "natural tendency." Do you know how bizarre that sounds when you compare it to sex supposedly being totally uncontrolled and uncontrollable except by artificial means, Greg? The Sandra Fluke syndrome?

Do you even know what you are talking about or is this just another case of your chasing your own tail?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

ZachXavier beat me to it.But I'm gonna reply anyway.Who is talking about the "message of abstinence" other than you? it's the act, not the message, that reduces unwanted, unexpected, unplanned for, out of wedlock births.If 1/4 to 1/3 of the brides in England went to the alter pregnant they were, most assuredly, NOT practicing abstinence.How does this bit of information bode well for your point of view?Seems to me, it doesn't.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The Brains of the Animal Kingdom - New research shows that we have grossly underestimated both the scope and the scale of animal intelligence. Primatologist Frans de Waal on memory-champ chimps, tool-using elephants and rats capable of empathy.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Wasn't Zach the one citing example after example of animal empathy. I seem to remember that he was scoffed at for stating that these traits were proof of our evolutionary origins. And it has always been my position that the precepts of human morals and ethics is based on reciprocal altruism which can be seen in other species. It sounds like you are ready to come over to the dark side- at least on this. Welcome!!

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Greg,Animal empathy - I guess that the evidence is so obvious and overwhelming that many articles will be written and Public Television will have programs like "Animal Odd Couples"The timing is right. There is a current video explosion which shows people abusing and torturing small animals like bunnies kittens puppies(living animals as vulnerable to abuse as a baby or child). Some of these videos are called 'crush' videos. I think there are serial killers who find another species easier to torture.Moral standards, ethical treatment. All debris of our human conscience rises to the surface when we must face that we have been torturing sentient beings all around us.I have seen animals exhibit more compassion than people. If we think of the importance of emotional intelligence in shaping character and moral decisions, human beings must reflect on their role as stewards of the earth, of themselves and recognize that other animals also think feel have bonds families grief and devotion. And they make choices.I have cats as roommates. They are peaceful. One cat, Kate,started to climb onto a piece of furniture. I looked at her and quietly asked her to stay down. She looked at me and then got down. I thanked her. She listened better than most people's children. And Kate was a feral born kitten.She understood that I was quietly asking her to not climb on the headboard of the bed. She understands English. I only understand a few feline words. That makes me anthropocentric.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Speaking of intellect and emotion of animals:I have see the facts of animal intelligence and compassion and communications for years. I had an indoor family of Persian cats and observed their bonds of caring and - I observed the same quality of relationships and compassion in 'feral/ abondoned cats. Feline behavior. My vet told me I should write about it.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

James,Thank you for the welcome back. I did not make it to Iowa yet but have spent much time lately trying the stabilize my internet access with better equipment.Thank you for referring to 'our last encounter'.You are a good man and honest. Your capacity to reflect upon your own actions and use your new understandings is character. Most people resist self-reflection and then cannot even be honest with themselves. Meta- knowledge , I guess. Knowledge about knowledge.I will als be clearer when I write so that my writing does not shift so much into examples in my own life. That will help to keep things clear. have visited some other comment areas at wsj community and noticed that , in general, a certain amount of time and energy is spent in skirmishes- words written that are inflamatory and end up in people just deriding each other rather than logically presenting about issues. It normal. We all want to protect the territory of our ideas and beliefs. I can't help but wonder how we would all act if we were sitting at a table talking directly to each other. Something for me to think about too.You are a good person and Xavier and Greg- some of my favorite WSJ people are in this group- though your ideas are different- your hearts are good.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

AnnWe have something in common.I, too, raised a feral cat from kitten hood, my son knew I wanted a cat and reached under a derelict car in a lot near my home and presented me with an adorable kitten. Adorable didn't last long, as it grew it was obvious that the cat was vicious and would only answer to me.My wife found no humor in standing perched on the back of the couch as the cat hissed and growled till I came in to call the cat off. Though it never did bother my kids.My cat was named "cat" and unlike yours, she went outside as she pleased, this was her demise.I would go out to the front steps of my building and holler "CAT" and she would come, if I wanted her inside, that's were she would go, or she stayed on the steps with me till I went inside.Another tenant had a Great Dane and came out of the building with his dog off it's leash as my cat sat on the stoop. The cat ran into the tiny little fenced area on the side when the dog attacked.My neighbor warned me about allowing my cat on the stoop when his dog was around. I, in turn, warned my neighbor about having his dog off it's leash when my cat was around.He learned the hard way.He came out the building again, no leash, my cat jumped into the small area but the dog now new and followed.Big mistake.My cat did not wait to be attacked, she attacked.She latched onto the dog's head and gouged it's face with her hind claws, when satisfied, she hopped the fence and took off.I apologized, but reminded him that he was warned.

As to her demise, she was hit by a car and killed right outside my doorsteps.I found her, took her, and buried her in that same little area she attacked the dog.She was a terror to most, but from my perspective, she was a delight.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

James, this is a great story. I am sorry to hear that your cat was hit by a car. What a smart brave cat! To have planned how to defend itself against a Great Dane.

I kept a couple of the feral born cats inside. Feral born cats usually attach to the one person they trust. They do not generalize that all people are trustworthy. They have met untrustworthy people and those people are dangerous or were cruel. I took some of the feral cats indoors where they took years to build trust. Much of their time was spent under beds when people were around. But the great moment comes when they know they can trust you. And they look into your eyes directly and with trust and devotion.It is a momen that is always remembered. A feral born kitten will not trust everyone. We do have a common experience- it takes patience and love to give the animal time to build trustr.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

James,Are you sure your cat was struck by a car. Most feral born or even outdoor cats are traffic wary unless something scared her right into traffic.That she was killed right outside your doorstep.I lived in Mpls once in the years gone by. In apartments where the front door stoop/ porch was withina few yards of the street. It could be a close call if your 'Cat' was hbc- (hbc is hit by car in vet emergency rooms)

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Greg, take this as an indication of how idiotic and baseless so many of your rants can get. If and when you don't hear precisely what you want to hear, and in the precise words you want used and understand, you go off on total non sequiturs. "

Xavier,

Wow. A simple "No , I have been in this camp for some time. Perhaps you are confusing me with some of my otherwise ideological compadres who did voice considerable skepticism at the notion that these traits were detectable in so called lower species." But I do recall an episode in which Zach portrayed elephants caught in the act of releasing animals from their enclosures. I don't remember you saying "Bravo Zach. Proof positive that traits such as empathy and self-awareness do exist in non-human animals". Maybe Zach can weigh in on this since my capacity for recall and indeed my capacity for analysis and understanding are being questioned. I'm always looking for ways to improve so I will take under careful consideration your observations.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

This is the type of bald-faced lie that was irritating me for so long and felt compelled to jump in. Relax, Keith, I'm not re-joining the conversation. But I am exercising the same prerogative that Jim O. is choosing for himself, which is when the mood hits, jump in to correct the record.

In this case, Both Jim O and Xavier are patting themselves on the back for being "objective" and oh so scientific, unlike those dastardly denizens of the deep left.

Let me use the technical term: balderdash.

Let's start with Jim O., my favorite purveyor of platitudes. Jim O., always the advocate of bluster, wants us to believe he is the consummate independent thinker. He speaks truth to power. He cares not about ideology, but rails against the ideologues and their fellow traveling propagandists.

But somehow, in Jim O.'s world, all the propagandists are on the left. Amazingly, there are no propagandists on the right. Glen Beck is a figment of the serial prevaricators. Sean Hannity always plays it down the middle, on that "fair and balanced" channel. In Jim O.'s world only Obama and his dastardly minions are guilty of cirrhosis of the mind. It almost defies logic.

As for Xavier, I have had the privilege of experiencing the X-man in other discussions. Here, due to the diversity of this group, he tries his best to sound balanced and reasonable except when he lets his slip show, which is admittedly rare. People like Zach and Greg, hold him to a higher standard. I will, modestly, accept some credit for keeping Xavier from going all-out Tea Party on this group. But when surrounded by the like minded, he acts like the conservative herd animal he really is. Never engaging, never challenging, always going along with the homogeneous herd. Ah, the fear of being ostracized by his people.

It is easy to criticize and point out the failings of people who differ philosophically from you, eh, Jim O.? I guess all those moot court exercises were wasted on you. Jim, you have the capacity to be critical of the severely stupid like Todd Akin and Sarah Palin but you choose not to. It feels so much better to point out the flaws in your adversaries. I guess that's what you get paid to do, except here, we don't get paid - we are supposed to be honest, which is something you know precious little about.

You want us to believe the laughable proposition that Romney lost the election because people believed trivia like he abused his dog. Or maybe the canard Mitt himself regurgitated about 47% of the public not wanting to take responsibility for their own lives so they voted for Obama. The problem with that assertion is that within that 47% are 85 year old widows hanging on by a thread with nothing but their Social Security to prevent them from living in a box on the street. Also, in that derelict 47% is a combat Marine, sponging off Uncle Sam, so that you and your right-wing buddies can spout about how the government is trashing the Constitution.

And no, these are not non-sequiturs (gotta love that Latin). Both Xavier and Jim O. are propagandists of the first order, because the sure sign of a propagandist is one who repeatedly and emphatically denies his or her doctrinaire based opinions. I am a proud progressive. Zach is a proud Libertarian. Greg is a proud Liberal. None of us make a secret of that. But we can all rise above our beliefs and search for truth even through our admittedly rose-colored glasses.

Xavier and Jim O. are right-wingers who love to spend their time bashing the left. Fair enough. There is plenty on the left to bash. But don't insult our collective intelligence by claiming you are indulging in anything else.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

PeterI've defended Jim O enough, and neither him nor Xavier need me to speak for them, but I do wonder what points you have to make about Xavier that have a basis in truth?Have you any?I read you diatribe, and it says

"As for Xavier, I have had the privilege of experiencing the X-man in other discussions. Here, due to the diversity of this group, he tries his best to sound balanced and reasonable except when he lets his slip show, which is admittedly rare. People like Zach and Greg, hold him to a higher standard. I will, modestly, accept some credit for keeping Xavier from going all-out Tea Party on this group. But when surrounded by the like minded, he acts like the conservative herd animal he really is. Never engaging, never challenging, always going along with the homogeneous herd. Ah, the fear of being ostracized by his people."

This is nothing more than the ravings of an opinionated fool.You modestly accept some credit for keeping Xavier from going all-out Tea Party'You would not understand modesty if it slapped your fat face.And I assure you, Xavier is not guided by the likes of you or me.

How does an opinionated fool like yourself ever try to show balance or reason? Your slip is always showing. How do you deem yourself qualified to judge anyone on a characteristic that you are so blatantly void of?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Regarding Peter's post, there is a word for it and this is one of those times when I just can't bring it to mind. It means that one attacks and demeans the character character of a person rather than the message he brings. That's our Pete, a political animal to the very ends of the earth.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You have a superlative capacity to think independently. You analyze a broad spectrum of issues across disciplinary boundaries impartially and soberly, and never filter your comments through an ideological perspective. This is commendable -- and universally noticed.

But by resisting the coercive indoctrination of the left and exposing where it surfaces -- which is just about everywhere on everything -- you force these ideologues and propagandists to think, and to do so deeply. That is a game changer. "Idiotic and baseless rants" are what they are all about: never argue the merits, but "Alinsky" the debate to score imaginary points.

Romney killed a woman and abused his dog, they preposterously asserted, and low information Americans bought the garbage hook, line and sinker. Obama spent billions of tax payer dollars on shovel ready jobs -- later admitting that there were never any jobs...or even shovels -- and he got a pass on this costly malfeasance!

This moral-calculator class is infinitely adroit at going off "on total non-sequitors" and arguing them from their unwaveringly dogmatic ideology, which encourages them to decide ex cathedra what has merit and what doesn't -- what is right and wrong-thinking on all reality a priori. "Assassinating the character of others" who don't agree with them and refuse to submit compliantly to their authority is their sovereign strategy -- and, electorally at least, it worked. Many citizens under the age of fifty know no better.

So don't let your heart be troubled. These leftists are still hung over from celebrating their political victories. They don't know that chronically imbibing the progressive elixirs of moral relativism and cost-benefit calculus leads to cirrhosis of the mind --- and the heart. These are slow-developing afflictions which, if untreated, become fatal.

Keep on posting and calling them out on their serial prevarications, as you have been so adeptly doing for a long time. The boys (and gals) of the left are embarrassingly outclassed by intellects of your caliber!